Gay Marriage Acceptance or No Jobs

There are equally as many scientific articles that oppose the theory. The best sources for you to quote to me are Nature magazine or Science Magazine.
Fact remains homosexuality is a choice. There may be slight influence based on hormones and the environment, but it still comes down to a choice.

If it was natural why do gay men exaggerate female qualities? It is to try to appear more female when they cannot naturally replicate normal female
behavior.

However, in the same study, the authors noted that "nongenetic alternative explanations cannot be ruled out"

There are signs of god's existence. If a human made a fishbowl and put a fish in it, and you ask the fish to prove that their is a maker. The fish
does not have the intellectual capacity or the means to prove that its bowl was artificially produced. The same is true for our universe.

1. this is not true, there is ZERO evidence for intelligent design of the natural world.
2. even if there were some signs, it is not a proof of any concrete human religion, certainly not homophobic and bigoted abrahamic religion.
3. you claim "the fish" is unable to determine if its "universe" is artificially produced, yet you claim to know the answer. How, if you claim
that we do not have the capacity to determine it?

Evil does not require a victim. When your parent's told you not to do something when you were younger you complained and said why. There are reasons
for God forbidding homosexuality that are beyond our grasp. You are asking why of an infinite, omnipotent being? Seriously..?

Again, this argument is completely void unless you prove there is a god, and specifically, bigoted abrahamic god.

1. this is not true, there is ZERO evidence for intelligent design of the natural world.

Actually their are elements of intelligent design. Numerous. Such as the perfect balance of the rate of expansion of the universe, the properties of
water, numerous others..

2. even if there were some signs, it is not a proof of any concrete human religion, certainly not homophobic and bigoted abrahamic religion.

Yes God created the universe so he can lay out the rules. God does not like gays, that is a homosexual's problem and they have to answer to God for
it.

. you claim "the fish" is unable to determine if its "universe" is artificially produced, yet you claim to know the answer. How, if you claim that
we do not have the capacity to determine it?

I said the fish is unable to prove the existence of the maker, yet I made the bowl and I know I did. We do not have the capacity yet because we have
not proven it yet. There were times when we could not prove the earth was round but scientists insisted the earth was round.

Again, this argument is completely void unless you prove there is a god, and specifically, bigoted abrahamic god.

As I mentioned, proof is not required, the signs are around us and God makes the rules, not humans.

Source? And I dont see a problem, even if they do. How does that point to sexuality being a choice?

No need for a source it is an observation. If a gay man wanted to act like a female, why does he need to exaggerate female hip movements beyond what a
normal female moves. If it was natural, then the gay man's hip movements would be more like a natural female's

Same with lesbians. Why do they try to appear more like a man at times. They are trying so hard to appear like a man unnaturally via exaggeration.

I would like to see some.

When I get the chance I will show them.

Nobody can choose likes, desires or drives. We can only choose to act on them or not.

This is because homosexualtiy is not a desire, it is a personal choice.

Well, your observation is wrong, then, and pretty ignorant. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

If a gay man wanted to act like a female, why does he need to exaggerate female hip movements beyond what a normal female moves. If it was natural,
then the gay man's hip movements would be more like a natural female's

If a gay man has a brain more similar to a womans brain in some areas, then he may act more like a woman (not that this is the case). Still not a
choice.

Same with lesbians. Why do they try to appear more like a man at times. They are trying so hard to appear like a man unnaturally via exaggeration.

Ever heard of the antropic principle? Universe is not fine tuned for us. We are fine tuned
for the universe, because we evolved in it. If the universe was different, life inside would be simply different too, or there would be no life to ask
such questions.

Yes God created the universe so he can lay out the rules. God does not like gays, that is a homosexual's problem and they have to answer to God for
it.

Of course he can lay out the rules IF he exist. But assuming some sings pointing to an intelligent designer even exist, how do you know that abrahamic
religion of the ancient goat herders are rules he wants us to obey? How do you know the creator is the abrahamic god, and not for example Shiva, Thor,
Aphrodita, the flying spaghetti monster, or something entirely unknown to human race?

Well, your observation is wrong, then, and pretty ignorant. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

How is it wrong? Point out which part of if it is wrong. Haven't you seen the super "flamboyant" gay men act super feminine. They are trying too
hard to appear feminine unnaturally. They are exaggerating on purpose, ie via choice.

If a gay man has a brain more similar to a womans brain in some areas, then he may act more like a woman (not that this is the case). Still not a
choice.

You have to demonstrate that his brain is fully the equivalent of a womans brain. Just because you say "if a gay man" doesn't mean a gay mans brain
is more feminine.

Same with lesbians. Why do they try to appear more like a man at times. They are trying so hard to appear like a man unnaturally via
exaggeration. And still not a choice.

Just because you said not a choice doenst make it true. Explain to me lesbian behavoir then? Why are they trying so hard un-naturally to be more like
a man? If it was so natural to be a man, everything should be natural to them.

There is nothing perfect about the rate of expansion, it can vary very widely without compromising the likehood of developing star systems. The same
is true for many other parameters of the universe.

Actually that is not true, a deviation in either 1/10 millionth in the rate of expansion of the universe would not permit the formation of the
universe in its current state.

Yes I know about the anthropic principle. My argument is not complexity, it is precision and balance.

If the universe was different, life inside would be simply different too, or there would be no life to ask such questions.

Exactly, there may be no life, no humans to praise God. This universe was built for humans for one purpose and one purpose only. To worship God.
Changing physical parameters would not permit the formation of humans.

Also did you know that approximately 1400 years ago, Muhammed was able to precisely point to mecca from some place in Yemen or something. Without
using satellite technology. They were trying to build a mosque, but it needed to be pointed to mecca, so God told him where to point it. Google earth
today verifies this result. How could someone 1400 years ago know the precise location of another building hundreds of miles away without satellite
technology.

How is it wrong? Point out which part of if it is wrong. Haven't you seen the super "flamboyant" gay men act super feminine. They are trying too
hard to appear feminine unnaturally. They are exaggerating on purpose, ie via choice.

No, I have not seen them. That is just a stereotype, far from reality.

You have to demonstrate that his brain is fully the equivalent of a womans brain. Just because you say "if a gay man" doesn't mean a gay mans brain
is more feminine.

Anyway, I believe your observation to be false, so why should I demonstrate this? You are making an assertion.

Just because you said not a choice doenst make it true. Explain to me lesbian behavoir then? Why are they trying so hard un-naturally to be more like
a man? If it was so natural to be a man, everything should be natural to them.

They are not trying unnaturally. For them it is natural (assuming your observation is right). Still not a choice.

We cannot choose our likes, desires or drives (not just sexual ones). We can only consciously choose to act on them or not.

No, I have not seen them. That is just a stereotype, far from reality.

Here I just showed you. He has the physical body of a man, yet he is unnaturally trying to alter his voice on purpose to try to appear more and more
feminine. Look at his body movements, he is trying on purpose to appear more feminine, but overdoes it.

We cannot choose our likes, desires or drives (not just sexual ones). We can only consciously choose to act on them or not.

Once again you are thinking homosexuality is not a choice.

I agree with you on the webmd link that their are some traits that are shown, but which comes first the trait or the behavior. There is no causal
demonstration. A person who trains themselves a certain way, can have a brain that looks different.

Actually that is not true, a deviation in either 1/10 millionth in the rate of expansion of the universe would not permit the formation of the
universe in its current state.

Seems like you are talking about the inflation period. Yes, there is a
fine tuning problem in current theory, but thats explained by the
anthropic principle. No need for god.

My argument is not complexity, it is precision and balance.

Precision and balance is a form of "complexity" in information thermodynamics. Complexity, precision, fine-tuning, balance are all equivalent
qualities - negative entropy, or information.

How do you logically jump from

Exactly, there may be no life, no humans to praise God.

to

This universe was built for humans for one purpose and one purpose only. To worship God.

?? It does not follow. The premise is:
"If the parameters of the universe were different, life would be different, or even not present."

This premise does not logically imply that "the universe must be created by conscious entity (since the process leading to formation of the universe
with humans can still be perfectly natural and not self-aware. And actually, Occams Razor prefers this explanation.) ", or "the purpose of humans is
to worship it".

Not even talking about that even if the universe was created by conscious creator, it can be Aphrodite, or something completely unknown to our species
culture. There is no evidence its bigoted abrahamic god.

Also did you know that approximately 1400 years ago, Muhammed was able to precisely point to mecca from some place in Yemen or something. Without
using satellite technology. They were trying to build a mosque, but it needed to be pointed to mecca, so God told him where to point it. Google earth
today verifies this result. How could someone 1400 years ago know the precise location of another building hundreds of miles away without satellite
technology.

Source?

And ancient people were not stupid, they were as intelligent as we are. There is certainly a way how to determine directions without satelittes, using
sun, stars etc, they had maps, known cardinal directions... Ancients even before Greek an Roman civilisations did not have problems navigating great
distances at oceans, so why should relatively advanced arab civilisation have problems with it, much less on the ground and not at sea?

No, I have not seen them. That is just a stereotype, far from reality.

Here I just showed you. He has the physical body of a man, yet he is unnaturally trying to alter his voice on purpose to try to appear more and more
feminine. Look at his body movements, he is trying on purpose to appear more feminine, but overdoes it.

We cannot choose our likes, desires or drives (not just sexual ones). We can only consciously choose to act on them or not.

Once again you are thinking homosexuality is not a choice.

I agree with you on the webmd link that their are some traits that are shown, but which comes first the trait or the behavior. There is no causal
demonstration. A person who trains themselves a certain way, can have a brain that looks different.

edit on 29-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL
because: (no reason given)

One is born homosexual just as another is born heterosexual. I can't believe people are still trying to use the above argument because it's more than
a little bit ridiculous.

The homosexual in your clip may have chosen to behave more feminine. This is no way means he chose to be homosexual.

Here I just showed you. He has the physical body of a man, yet he is unnaturally trying to alter his voice on purpose to try to appear more and more
feminine. Look at his body movements, he is trying on purpose to appear more feminine, but overdoes it.

As I said, that is a stereotype. Overwhelming majority of gay people are not like that, and even if they are, it would not be a choice, but the
result of their homosexuality, or a choice they make after they were born homosexual.

I agree with you on the webmd link that their are some traits that are shown, but which comes first the trait or the behavior. There is no causal
demonstration. A person who trains themselves a certain way, can have a brain that looks different.

So the gays train themselves? Do they wake up in the morning and consciously say: "I am gonna train myself to be attracted to men, even tough I am
attracted to women now"? That is not how it works. Sexuality is not a conscious choice. You see a person, and your body tells you if you are
attracted, or not. Then you can choose to act, or not. Also, would you be able to train yourself to be attracted to men?

Using star navigation doesnt give you accuracies to the meter when i saw it. It is somewhere, I will find it. navigating the ocean is much less
accurate than the accuracy required to make a tomahawk precision missile strike, which was what was demonstrated on the video. This was done 1400
years ago. If I find it I will show you.

This is only a sample though - more can be found by anyone willing to spend the time looking. There is nothing special about the Sana'a mosque,
except for the claim that it was founded by Muhammad. Furthermore, those living in the Desert (Arabs) relied on their sense of direction and we know
Muslims are required to face Mecca 5 times per-day every-day when they pray. Why is it such a miracle that Muhammad and his companions knew where
Mecca was?
Even the Egyptians and Mesopotamians were more precise in their distance and orientation calculations, and that was 5,000 years ago. They used the
stars as a guide. Is that a 'miracle' from Allah too?

Can I ask you what beliefs are you? You have both used Christian and Islamic beliefs in the discussion

Just because you discovered an alternate method to do something doesnt' mean that is what they used. The history books states how they did it, using
Muhammads information. Nothing got disproven lol. All you found out was an alternate method to do the same thing. We can do the same thing today with
satellites, does it mean that they had satellites 1400 years ago?

You must find it documented that they used the stars for this particular project. History states otherwise.

This is only a sample though - more can be found by anyone willing to spend the time looking. There is nothing special about the Sana'a mosque, except
for the claim that it was founded by Muhammad

Problem is this mosque is much much older than all the other mosques he compares it to, and provides no evidence of how each of the other mosques was
made.

His analysis is wrong because I looked up the dates of creation of the other mosques and they are fairly recent. They were modern made using modern
technology.

Exactly, using Muhhamads information (which he may have determined either himself or asked someone else). Not Gods information.

If you have two methods something may have happened, one is natural, realistic and probable, the other is supernatural fantasy, backed only by
unreliable and biased religious scriptures testimony, Occams razor (heck, basic common sense) says natural explanation is the preffered one.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.